(comments) AirwaySim v.1.3 news, previews & info

[Maarten Otto]

Yes Sami... But also tell that I do not fly big birds but small s***ty turbo stuff that is terribly EXPANSIVE already if you pay 800K for a regular slot. But again... This is a Boeing and Airbus airline simulator. Those guys got the money as their overhead is low. Yet my aircraft can not fly 3 hour routes so they fly more legs a day.... resulting in more slots to make it financially viable. And I do pay for that as slots run out I have to pay more per slot. And I was happy with how things were.

[Infinity]

I do feel that you are widely now making this a bigger issue than it is

Absolutely not. You have been told the arguments for that. I will check the effect of the revised change when there is the next slot drop in LAX, but even if it would be acceptable now, the change remains absolute ill thought out crap that will at any rate make airlines running small aircraft unviable again.

[Sami]

I will check the effect of the revised change when there is the next slot drop in LAX

You can already check that using the single slots available there (weekend days for example). Just multiply by 7. Of course depends on how many new routes you have opened previously, but it shouldn't exceed the 120-130 what the example below has.

Edit: Another check out of interest: SAC who has gotten 120 new slots in last 2 months is getting a single slot from AMS on saturday at 15.50. Previous cost was ~450k, new cost is ~570k. Not a drastic change in my mind?

[Infinity]

You can already check that using the single slots available there (weekend days for example). Just multiply by 7. Of course depends on how many new routes you have opened previously, but it shouldn't exceed the 120-130 what the example below has.

The way I understood it from alliance members who had a slot drop, the costs of slot grew exponentially, so looking at the cost of single slots is not really representative.

[Maarten Otto]

Okay... lets VOTE. As we pay for the product let's put democracy in place.

Do we want this yes or no?

[Sami]

The way I understood it from alliance members who had a slot drop, the costs of slot grew exponentially, so looking at the cost of single slots is not really representative.

Yes, it takes into account how much slots you have gotten previously. But in my example the player had already 120 new previous slots in the period where it's examined, and that is a very high number already.

Examples: If he would have taken 100 new slots (from this given airport) during last 2 game days and another 120 during last 60 game days cost would have been $800k per slot instead of $570k (120 during 60 days), and base cost in this example (no new slots in 60 days) is the mentioned ~470k. (And 120 slots means 1 new operation every day, 17hrs/day which is very much, and 100+120 (the first $800k example) is already a huge amount...). These numbers are just single examples though, just to show the scale. But in practical terms nobody is ever getting 200+ slots in 60 game days really, so the first example (about 1.8x of original cost) is rather theoretical.

(^if that didn't make any sense, I can make another example later on if requested.)


For normal scheduling/route planning this should have no or very little effect like mentioned, so should have no effect on small airlines either - unless you create routes for 10+ planes at once or try to snap all slots of an airport once they appear.


Oh, and to add - like posted in the other sub-forum; if you feel that during the 45 min period when the wrong factor value was online you spent too much (ie. tens of millions?), please PM me with details (ref. this thread)

[Maarten Otto]

For someone operating 737's.... YES.   For someone operating small turboprops with 30 seats..... Nah....  And then again... I already paid more per slot as they became more expansive over time. That was a feature received by a lot of people with great applause BTW.

[Aoitsuki]

the fix(I am not sure is it back to the old system, or is it a new formula that is implemented) seems more manageable.. as I was a heavy intake of few previous slot drop. I think slot drop priced gained roughly 30%+ if not more... But I don't know how high will this go as sami indicated slot drop should be much frequent.

[Alberto]

I'm not commenting on the new changes, which might or might not be good (I think we need time to evaluate and every consideration uttered right now is just guts feelings). Still, I think that introducing big changes (a part from bugfixes) in running game worlds, especially without any forewarning, should be avoided and looks a bit "unethical"... if there is such thing as ethics in computer gaming (I suppose so).

[Lavo]

So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

What about in a decent sized airport with 2 smaller players. Heaps of room for expansion for all, but because 1 player has greater than 50% of the slots purchased so far, he's going to get penalized?

I can see why it's in place for Heathrow, etc, but that's going to kill a lot of other places

[Maarten Otto]

I wonder what will happen if you base at an airport with say 4 or 8 slots per hour.... Get a nice 1.6 million slot price presented as well?

[Sami]

So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

No, not correct ..

The anti-monopoly fee has been there always, and it kicks in when airport is slot controlled (no or very few free slots), and only if one airline (you) owns more than 50% of the slots, all slots - taken and available ones. The cost factor has been increased a bit in that case, that is the only change - the principle here has not changed at all. And that cost too is relative to the amount of slots you own, so it's not "5 million more at the minute you have 50% slots". So unless you own 80% of LHR's all slots, it's not an issue to worry of.

If your "slot share" is 100% but there are free slots, there are no changes. (= mostly the case for a small airport)

[JumboShrimp]

So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

What about in a decent sized airport with 2 smaller players. Heaps of room for expansion for all, but because 1 player has greater than 50% of the slots purchased so far, he's going to get penalized?

Yeah, that's the new Karl Marx slot allocation.  If there are 2 equally large players both own 40% of the slots, 80% combined, the airport is slot locked and the rest of the world is pretty much locked out of the airport all is fine.

But if one of the 2 players outgrows the other and reaches 50% of slots, and the other falls to 30% of slots, the larger player gets penalized for playing too well.

Nothing really changes to slot availability, airport is still slot locked, 2 players still own 80% combined, and the rest of the world is still shut out.

So the purpose this change served was to punish a more successful airline for being too successful...

[brique]

So if I'm reading this right, it's increasing the slot price massively, for those that "own" more than 50% of the "owned" slot fees at a given airport

What about in a decent sized airport with 2 smaller players. Heaps of room for expansion for all, but because 1 player has greater than 50% of the slots purchased so far, he's going to get penalized?

I can see why it's in place for Heathrow, etc, but that's going to kill a lot of other places

as posted by sami : ' - The new slot fees for monopoly position (>50% of owned slots at any large airport that is slot limited) are increased.'

So its not across-the-board at all airports, just the usual problematic ones...

[stevecree]

So the purpose this change served was to punish a more successful airline for being too successful...

As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  

[dasherhalo]

No, not correct ..

The anti-monopoly fee has been there always, and it kicks in when airport is slot controlled (no or very few free slots), and only if one airline (you) owns more than 50% of the slots. The cost factor has been increased a bit in that case, that is the only change - the principle here has not changed at all.

If your "slot share" is 100% but there are free slots, there are no changes.

Would that mean if I'm "solo" at a base, I've got no penalty at all, no matter how many slots I take?

Further, if that's so, does anyone joining or basing at that airport immediately trigger the anti-monopoly penalties?

[brique]

As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  

that would be scary : AWS - Armageddon : but could be enormous fun too

[JumboShrimp]

as posted by sami : ' - The new slot fees for monopoly position (>50% of owned slots at any large airport that is slot limited) are increased.'

So its not across-the-board at all airports, just the usual problematic ones...

I think the number of these "problematic ones" is going to be quite large.  I am not even on the first page of top airports (DXB), and my airport appears to be one of the problematic ones...

[stevecree]

that would be scary : AWS - Armageddon : but could be enormous fun too

Exactly - no restrictions on oversupply, no restrictions on how many used a/c you can take in a week, no restrictions on anything....any thing goes with no complaints.  That is my ideal AWS world.  ABCBA routes included please

[Aoitsuki]

As most other changes have been orientated towards going back for some time !  What is needed is a "brutal" level of game where all these silly restrictions that protect lesser active players are lifted and those who want to be in a proper battle and end up being massive can do so....but enter at your own risk !  I for one would love that  

that might be fun..... feature request?